get_pattern

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key conditional behavior (differing output based on whether pattern_name is supplied), but it does not mention error handling, output format details, or side effects. For a read-only retrieval tool, this is adequate but minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler. Each clause conveys essential information: what is retrieved and the conditional list behavior. It is front-loaded and perfectly sized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and usage scenarios. It lacks details on the contents of pattern information or error behavior, but given the low complexity and full schema coverage, it is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description largely mirrors the schema's parameter description (if not specified, returns all patterns) without adding new syntax or format details. It does not meaningfully enrich the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb (取得する/retrieve) and resource (実装パターン情報/implementation pattern information), clearly stating what the tool does. It also mentions the optional parameter behavior, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools focused on health checks, endpoints, spec pages, and migration.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states two usage modes: omitting pattern_name returns all patterns, while specifying it returns a specific pattern. This provides clear context on when to use each mode, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or list exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.